Do you have health insurance?

[luvsJack]

LuvsJack, no you don't have to defend yourself at all. As you can see, most people on this thread completely understand where you're coming from and feel compassion for those of you struggling to pay for health insurance or are without.

Thank you

 

[Arielle22]

OMG what? how do they enforce that? and what do they do if you do not have health insurance????? take your home and kick you out of the state

I am also in MA and am employed as a HR Mgr. Every new hire is required to fill out a HIRD form (Health Insurance Resonsibility Disclosure) if the new hire does not pick medical insurance. The form asks if we offer insurance and how much is the employee premium. Then the employee must answer 3 questions and sign the form. The company has to report quarterly to the state if we offer insurance and how many are insured (no names just total numbers).

If you do not have insurance, you loose your personal deduction on your state income tax. I believe the penalties for no insurance are scheduled to increase but since I have insurance I am not sure.

You can apply to the state for subsidized plans if you fall within the income guidelines.

Renewing insurance is one of my worst responsibilities. We have to look at the rates our agents provide and try to decide what will have the least impact on the employees. Last year we had to raise the deductible (which brought the cost down quite a bit) but not raise the co-payment for several items as the savings couldn't justify the additional costs. My company pays 75% of the premiums for health (dental is 100% employee paid). The family plan is $357.22 per month.

 

[Forevryoung]

I have never been without health insurance either.

However, my parents are both self employed so at the cost of $13,000 a year they were able to ensure the 4 of us. I am no longer a child and covered under that plan.

Now I work for a small company that does not contribute a dime toward my health insurance.

I pay $418 a month for my plan. I pay $110 for prescriptions each month. I pay $25 for regular visits and $40 for specialists. Essentially I pay over $600 a month for my health care for MYSELF only.

This month, my 32 yearly visits of therapy are up. I will be paying another $480 for Oct, Nov, and Dec (over $1000). It makes me sick thinking about it.

I love my job, but I can't move out of my parents home on what I'm taking home after taxes and health care.

 

[golfgal]

I have never been without health insurance either.

However, my parents are both self employed so at the cost of $13,000 a year they were able to ensure the 4 of us. I am no longer a child and covered under that plan.

Now I work for a small company that does not contribute a dime toward my health insurance.

I pay $418 a month for my plan. I pay $110 for prescriptions each month. I pay $25 for regular visits and $40 for specialists. Essentially I pay over $600 a month for my health care for MYSELF only.

This month, my 32 yearly visits of therapy are up. I will be paying another $480 for Oct, Nov, and Dec (over $1000). It makes me sick thinking about it.

I love my job, but I can't move out of my parents home on what I'm taking home after taxes and health care.

If this is a group plan by law they have to pay at least 50% of the premium. You may just be paying the employee portion. If you have an individual plan you got on your own then no, they don't have to pay for any of it.

 

[disney1990]

If this is a group plan by law they have to pay at least 50% of the premium. You may just be paying the employee portion. If you have an individual plan you got on your own then no, they don't have to pay for any of it.

It may be the law in MN, but not in all states. I used to do HR in Maryland, and we definitely did not pay 50% of the premium for our employees.

There you go again, tempting me to move.

 

[golfgal]

It may be the law in MN, but not in all states. I used to do HR in Maryland, and we definitely did not pay 50% of the premium for our employees.

There you go again, tempting me to move.

It's a Federal law-to be a group plan the employer has to pay 50% of the premium. They can offer a low cost plan and pay 50% of that and then give employees the choice to "upgrade" but they are not then required to pay 50% of THAT cost. Say a company offers a plan where the total premium is $500, they are required to pay $250 if they want a group plan and take the tax deductions. They can also offer a second (or third or forth or however many) plan that is $800/month. They only have to pay $250 of that plan too.

 

[disney1990]

It's a Federal law-to be a group plan the employer has to pay 50% of the premium. They can offer a low cost plan and pay 50% of that and then give employees the choice to "upgrade" but they are not then required to pay 50% of THAT cost. Say a company offers a plan where the total premium is $500, they are required to pay $250 if they want a group plan and take the tax deductions. They can also offer a second (or third or forth or however many) plan that is $800/month. They only have to pay $250 of that plan too.

Do you know where to find this in writing? Because I have definitely worked for several companies that do not cover 50% of the premium.

 

[CharityLynn]

Wow, after reading this thread I am not feeling so sorry for myself. Next year we getting a hike in our insurance rates. Right now we pay $14 every 2 weeks. Starting in January we will be paying $90 every 2 weeks. All of our co-pays are going up too.

 

[metime]

If my family did not have a chronic life threatening medical issue I would probably go with out health insurance as a lot of people and not think much of it . I think if they taxed unhealthy items like cigarettes, alchohol, and junk foods then they could afford to have health care for all. As it stands now we are a very unhealthy nation as a whole, and the cost to keep up with paying for healthcare when half the population sustains an extremely unhealthy lifestyle would be staggering.

 

[j's m]

It's a Federal law-to be a group plan the employer has to pay 50% of the premium. They can offer a low cost plan and pay 50% of that and then give employees the choice to "upgrade" but they are not then required to pay 50% of THAT cost. Say a company offers a plan where the total premium is $500, they are required to pay $250 if they want a group plan and take the tax deductions. They can also offer a second (or third or forth or however many) plan that is $800/month. They only have to pay $250 of that plan too.

BC/BS of NJ only requires the employer to pay 10%.

I guess you should e-mail them the federal law that they don't know anything about.

 

[luvsJack]

I have said over and over for anyone that doesn't have access to a group plan they should be allowed to go on the federal employee plan at the employee rate. There are plenty of us that would suffer from WORSE insurance having a national plan.

Everyone DOES realize that having a national health plan will end up costing everyone a heck of a lot more in taxes then it does to pay for their insurance now because as it stands there will be no rating for people with preexisting conditions so those costs will be spread out to everyone-probably doubling or tripling what people pay now.

What is the employee rate of the federal employee plan?



If those with pre-existing conditions would make the taxes go up, doesn't it then stand to reason that those with no health issues would make them go down and everything would even out?

 

[golfgal]

BC/BS of NJ only requires the employer to pay 10%.

I guess you should e-mail them the federal law that they don't know anything about.

I guess I stand corrected-chalk one more up for the great state of MN, we were told it was a fed law under ERISA . I guess it is state to state. I suppose this is why our insurance is so much less in MN then. Maybe THAT could be the answer to the federal health plan, make employers pay more of the premium--which IS TAX Deductible for them so there is incentive there-plus if they run it through payroll they safe on FICA tax they pay too.

 

[JessicaR]

My company pays about $15k a year to cover DH and I in IL. This is for a faboulous plan, covers 100% of everything, I only pay $10 to see a doc and $50 for an ER visit (wavied if later admitted). I pay $5/$10 for prescriptions. That's it, it's all covered otherwise. My share of the premium is 10%, or $1500 a year. It's a deal in any book. But the point is that insurance costs vary widely and wildlly acrouss the country. If DH and I had to pay that ourselves, well, we make enough that we probably could, but we wouldn't have a penney of descretionary spending. Just the basics to live and that would be it. Most people of course, can't afford it at all.

We pay more than that out of pocket for a small group. My benefits, co-pays and deductibles are no where as good as yours. We're in NY. All I can agree with is so far I'm happy with my plan too. I hate this monthy bill but hate the alternative more.

 

[Tuffcookie]

I am very grateful for my health insurance. I only hope my youngest son decides to go to college after this, his final year of high school, so I can keep him on my insurance.

TC

 

[golfgal]

What is the employee rate of the federal employee plan?



If those with pre-existing conditions would make the taxes go up, doesn't it then stand to reason that those with no health issues would make them go down and everything would even out?

I have no idea what the employee rate is for the fed gov't plan-I am not a fed employee.

It would make sense that it would even out but it wouldn't. The healthy would just have to pay a share of the unhealthy's rates vs the unhealthy paying their full rate now and the healthy getting a better rate. If someone has $1,000,000 in health expenses and someone else has none that is still $500,000/person on average-so the healthy person pays double what they would under the current system. If you cut the unhealthy rate in half, eventually the system would implode because it would only take a small percentage of the healthy people they are planning on staying healthy to get sick and the system can't support itself. Is is the same thing that his happening to Medicare-they don't have enough healthy people to offset the 'sick" people.

 

[luvsJack]

I have no idea what the employee rate is for the fed gov't plan-I am not a fed employee.

It would make sense that it would even out but it wouldn't. The healthy would just have to pay a share of the unhealthy's rates vs the unhealthy paying their full rate now and the healthy getting a better rate. If someone has $1,000,000 in health expenses and someone else has none that is still $500,000/person on average-so the healthy person pays double what they would under the current system. If you cut the unhealthy rate in half, eventually the system would implode because it would only take a small percentage of the healthy people they are planning on staying healthy to get sick and the system can't support itself. Is is the same thing that his happening to Medicare-they don't have enough healthy people to offset the 'sick" people.

So how do you know that is a good answer to the problem? There may still be a large section of people that cannot afford the federal employee rate for insurance and would still be uncovered. Having access to a group plan is not always the issue, you seem to keep missing that.

 

[disney1990]

65% of people filing for bankruptcy, do so because of medical expenses.

80% of those people have health insurance

Our local news did a story about a couple here in Maryland. Here's a link to the story. They had good health insurance, but then disaster hit.

http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0909/659908.html

 

[HeyIt'sMe]

I have family coverage through my employer.

 

[luvsJack]

The profit margin on health insurance is VERY low. They have to keep a significant amount of money in reserves, by LAW, to pay claims so it LOOKS like they have a lot of money. The bonus money paid to executives would do NOTHING to lower the costs-if an executive gets a million dollar bonus and they have a million customers, wow that dollar a year is really going to help. What will then happen is they bid out the job of the corporate executive to the lowest bidder-not who I want running my insurance company.

The government will have to keep the same amount of money in reserves as the private insurance companies or the system will bankrupt in a year.

I simply don't agree with charging a flat rate for insurance. Take your car insurance for example-you are a good driver, no accidents, no claims, good credit report-you pay a very low fee. Then you take someone with several accidents, a couple DWI's and really bad credit and they pay 70% or MORE then you do. Would you want YOUR rates to go up to cover that guy's accidents and driving habits? Then you factor in that no one can get a rate increase because of their driving habits so who cares if you drink and drive or run stoplights, speed, etc. I want people to think twice about eating that box of twinkies...

I guess I don't see that the system isn't working--the people USING the system is what isn't working.

Just on the bolded part: The ones not working are getting free health care, its the ones who are out working their tails off and can't afford health insurance that are the concern here.

 

[golfgal]

So to those that say nationalized health care is not the solution, what is? What do you see as a solution? Because whether you choose to see it or not it IS a major problem in the United States. Too many people are falling through the cracks. Make too much for government assistance but not enough to afford insurance.

How many children out there do not get the check ups and preventive care needed to keep them healthy? Are we just supposed to ignore that? How many adults are not getting the preventive care they need for early cancer diagnosis simply because they cannot afford it or don't have insurance?


Too many people are going without any kind of health care. It is easy to sit and say that "its not a right" when you can afford insurance and you can afford top notch health care. Stop and think for a moment how you would feel if you could afford neither and your child was diagnosed with a life threatening disease that could be cured if only you had insurance to pay for the procedure. Some how I think you would have a different view of what is and isn't a right.

45% of the doctors will leave their practice? Maybe those aren't the doctors we need in this society anyway. If their only concern is the almighty dollar, who needs them? I would rather know that the doctor that is checking my daughter in her annual check up is there because he cares if my daughter is healthy or not; not because any tests he orders is going to make him another buck.

Why do you assume that dr's will leave their practice because of money? How about that they will leave their practice because they don't want the government telling them how to treat patients-limiting what tests they can give, what medications are acceptable, etc.? Maybe the ones that will leave ARE the ones you want taking care of your child because THEY are the ones with some ethical standards and care about how they treat their patients. Look at what happened with the HMO's--exactly this. The dr's lost control over how they treat patients. Most dr's do NOT want to be part of an HMO-and most HMO's have gone away from the HMO standard anyway-it doesn't work.